• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PIPER PETERSON,JEANIE PETERSON,
 Plaintiff 
,vs. Case No. 07-2603-EFMMICHAEL MOLDOFSKY, 
 Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
Between the years of 2004 and 2006, Plaintiff Piper Peterson and Defendant MichaelMoldofsky had multiple intimate encounters. During one of these encounters, Moldofsky photographed Peterson while she was engaged in various sexual acts with two other people.Sometime after the photographs were taken, Peterson and Moldofsky had a falling out. Followingthe falling out, Moldofsky emailed some of the photographs he had taken of Peterson to Peterson’smother, Co-plaintiff Jeanie Peterson, ex-husband, ex-in laws, current boyfriend, boss, andcoworkers. As a result of Moldofsky’s actions, Peterson and her mother both claim that they havesuffered severe emotional distress. This matter is currently before the Court on the followingmotions: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Counts I, II, IV, and V and onDefendant’s counterclaims (Doc. 32); and (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
Case 2:07-cv-02603-EFM Document 54 Filed 09/29/09 Page 1 of 13
 
1
In his response to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Defendant stated that he “has withdrawn all of his counterclaims.” Based on Defendant’s statement, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs onthese claims.
See Scotwood Indust., Inc. v. Frank Miller & Sons, Inc.
, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1171 (D. Kan. 2006).
2
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 
, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986).
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
4
 Haynes v. Level 3 Communications
, LLC, 456 F.3d 1215, 1219 (10th Cir. 2006).
5
 Id.
6
 LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank 
, 374 F.3d 917, 927 (10th Cir. 2004).
7
Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
, 353 F.3d 848, 851 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing
Celotex
, 477 U.S. at 322-23).
8
 Id.
(citing
Celotex
, 477 U.S. at 325).
-2-Plaintiffs’ Counts I, II, IV, and V (Doc. 34).
1
The parties have fully briefed the motions and theCourt is now prepared to issue its rulings.
I. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is an “integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole.”
2
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates that “there is no genuine issue as toany material fact” and that it is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
3
“An issue of fact is‘genuine’ if the evidence allows a reasonable jury to resolve the issue either way.”
4
A fact is“material” when “it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.”
5
When making itsdetermination whether to grant summary judgment, the court must view the evidence and allreasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
6
 Initially, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issueof material fact.
7
In attempting to meet this standard, the moving party need not disprove thenonmoving party’s claim; rather, the movant must simply point out the lack of evidence
 
on anessential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.
8
Case 2:07-cv-02603-EFM Document 54 Filed 09/29/09 Page 2 of 13
 
9
Garrison v. Gambro, Inc.
, 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005).
10
Mitchell v. City of Moore, Okla.
, 218 F.3d 1190, 1197 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing
 Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
, 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998).
11
 Adler 
, 144 F.3d at 671. While a district court may search for and consider evidence in the record thatwould rebut the defendant’s evidence, “it is not obligated to” do so.
Mandeville v. Quinstar Corp.
, 2000 WL1375264, *3 (D. Kan. Aug. 29, 2000).
12
White v. York Int’l Corp
., 45 F.3d 357, 363 (10th Cir. 1995).
13
 Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.
, 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir. 2004).
-3-If the moving party carries its initial burden, the party opposing summary judgment cannotrest on the pleadings but must bring forth “specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.”
9
 
Theopposing party must “set forth specific facts that would be admissible in evidence in the event of trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.”
10
 
“To accomplish this, thefacts must be identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibitsincorporated therein.”
11
Conclusory allegations alone cannot defeat a properly supported motionfor summary judgment.
12
The nonmovant’s “evidence, including testimony, must be based on morethan mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise.”
13
II. Analysis
A. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ClaimCounts I and II of Plaintiffs’ complaint allege that Defendant’s conduct constitutes the tortof intentional infliction of emotion distress. Both sides have motioned for summary judgment onthese claims. In their motion, Plaintiffs, Jeanie and Piper, argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because they have suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s conduct.In his briefing, Defendant contends that because his act of emailing photographs of Piper “engagedin group sexual activities to a handful of relatives and friends of Piper” was not “sufficiently extreme
Case 2:07-cv-02603-EFM Document 54 Filed 09/29/09 Page 3 of 13
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...